Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Programs And Reports topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Economic Development amendments strip pilot programs and strike report language from H.772
Summary
Legislative counsel told the Senate Judiciary that the Economic Development Committee would remove sections establishing a credit-reporting pilot, a security-deposit transition, and a CVOEO training program from H.772 because those programs lack current appropriations; the committee also struck legal-opinion language from the dedicated-docket report after judiciary concerns.
Senate Economic Development Committee amendments to H.772 would remove several programmatic provisions and narrow language about a dedicated residential rental docket, legislative counsel told the Senate Judiciary on May 26.
Cameron Boyd, legislative counsel, said the amendments would strike sections 7–9: a credit-reporting pilot (section 7), a security-deposit transition period (section 8), and a training program through CVOEO (section 9). He noted both the credit-reporting pilot and the CVOEO training included appropriations in the House version, but neither program had an appropriation available in current budget negotiations; he recommended removing them to avoid public ambiguity.
The committee also discussed section 11, which in the Judiciary draft included two subsections. Boyd said Economic Development struck subsection b — language asking courts or administrators to address specific legal issues — after the court administrator and Joe Soney testified that they were uncomfortable being asked to opine on legal matters that might come before the court. The committee retained procedural language about when to begin the 21-day expedited-hearing timeline and whether that period should run from filing or service.
Details
- Sections 7–9 removed: Boyd described section 7 as a credit-reporting pilot program and section 9 as a CVOEO program for landlord and tenant training; both had appropriations in House language but lacked appropriation in broader budget negotiations.
- Section 8 (security-deposit transition) was unnecessary if section 1 is struck in full, Boyd said.
- Section 11 report language: Boyd said the Judiciary’s draft included legal-issue questions (subsection b) about the cost and logistics of a dedicated docket and the legal standards for expedited hearings; the court administrator and Joe Soney asked the committee to strike subsection b because it asked the judiciary to opine on legal questions that might come before the courts.
Committee response and next steps
The Chair said the committee did not have time to fully review the judiciary-related changes and suggested an amendment the following day to return much of the bill to the Judiciary’s prior language. Boyd recommended removing appropriation-dependent programs from the bill because funding was not in place.
No formal votes or final decisions were recorded in the transcript; the committee planned to continue consideration.
